DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8 January 2026, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8 January 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weber et al (US 4,531,357 A) and Andres et al (US 10,621,541 B2).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weber fails to teach the housing is configured to surround the shaft and the temperature control device as disclosed in amended claim 1, however, the applicant appears to be implying that the amended claim 1 requires the housing to surround the whole temperature-controlling device, which attaches extra limitations not required by the claim. Note that the temperature-controlling device is further defined by the claim as including a temperature-controlling sleeve and a gas temperature-controlling ring. Weber discloses a housing surrounding at least one of the two components that define the temperature-controlling device, see claim rejections details below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “the temperature control device … a second temperature controlling guide geometry … the second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry”; for terminology consistency purposes, claim 1 should recite “the temperature-controlling device … a second temperature-controlling guide geometry … the second radially-outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry”.
Claim 10 recites “a second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry”; for terminology consistency purposes, claim 10 should recite “a second radially-outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry”.
Claim 11 recites “the second-temperature control guide geometry”; for terminology consistency purposes, claim 11 should recite “the second temperature controlling guide geometry”.
Claim 12 is missing an end period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al – hereafter Weber – (US 4,531,357 A) in view of Andres et al – hereafter Andres – (US 10,621,541 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Weber teaches a gas supply apparatus (Fig.2/3; compressor) comprising: a shaft (1), which is rotatably mounted about a rotational axis (mounted via bearings 7);
a temperature-controlling device including a medium temperature control (10/12) surrounding the shaft and combined with a gas temperature control (8/11/12); and
a housing (13), wherein the housing is configured to surround the shaft and the temperature control device (Note housing 13 surround the shaft 1 and the medium temperature control 10/12), wherein
the temperature-controlling device comprises:
a temperature-controlling sleeve (4) with a first temperature-controlling guide geometry (12), which opens radially outward and is configured for guiding a flow of a temperature-controlling medium, and, for temperature-controlling gas,
a gas temperature-controlling ring (9), which includes a second temperature-controlling guide geometry (12 radially outward of 9) that opens radially outward, said gas temperature-controlling ring delimiting the first temperature-controlling guide geometry inwardly and/or axially and being delimited radially outwardly by a housing body (14; note that housing is defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as “something that covers or protects”; in the current instance, element 14 covers and protects said gas temperature-controlling ring),
wherein the gas temperature-controlling ring comprises a sleeve-like base body (9), however, does not explicitly teach a structural sheet metal that serves as the second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry.
Andres teaches a temperature-controlling ring (Fig.1A/B/C) which includes a sleeve-like base body (20), and a structural sheet metal (note 24 extends as a sheet axially along 12 and circumferentially around 12) that serves as a second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry (note 26).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas supply apparatus of Weber by having a structural sheet metal that serves as the second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry based on the teachings of Andres because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (temperature-controlling ring of Weber) for another (temperature-controlling ring of Andres) to obtain predictable results (providing a structure with temperature controlling features that efficiently exchange heat between a heat source and a passing fluid).
Regarding claim 2, Weber and Andres further teach the sleeve-like base body is configured as a straight circular-cylindrical barrel (Andres Fig.1A/B/C, 20).
Regarding claim 3, Weber and Andres teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the sleeve-like base body comprises a collar at one end.
Andres further teaches an embodiment where the sleeve-like base body (Andres Fig.3, 220) comprises a collar (Andres Fig.3, 230) at one end (Andres Fig.3), this configuration blocks cooling fluid from contacting the shaft and other motor components which can be damaged (column 7 line 55-60).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the gas supply apparatus of Weber and Andres by having the sleeve-like base body comprises a collar at one end based on the further teachings of Andres because this would block cooling fluid from contacting the shaft and other motor components which can be damaged.
Regarding claim 4, Weber and Andres further teach the structural sheet metal is connected to the sleeve-like base body in a material-locking manner (Andres Fig.1A/B/C; note that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113 I; in the current instance a material-locking manner process is not expected to change the structural sheet metal and sleeve-like base body themselves).
Regarding claim 5, Weber and Andres further teach the structural sheet metal is connected to the sleeve-like base body in a positive-locking manner (Andres Fig.1A/B/C; note that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113 I; in the current instance a material-locking manner process is not expected to change the structural sheet metal and sleeve-like base body themselves).
Regarding claim 6, Weber and Andres further teach on a side facing away from the sleeve-like base body, the structural sheet metal comprises a gas-guiding surface (Andres Fig.1A/B/C) with raised regions (Andres Fig.1A/B/C, 26), which serve as the second radially-outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry (Andres Fig.1A/B/C).
Regarding claim 10, Weber teaches a gas supply system (Fig.1/2/3; compressor) comprising:
a shaft (1) rotatably mounted about a rotational axis (mounted via bearings 7) in a housing (13); and
a temperature-controlling device including a medium temperature control (10/12) surrounding the shaft and combined with a gas temperature control (8/11/12), wherein the gas temperature-control comprises:
a gas temperature-controlling ring (9) comprising:
a sleeve-like base body (9) configured as a straight circular barrel, a collar at one axial end of the base body, wherein the collar has a receptacle groove for receiving a sealing element (Annotated Fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, does not explicitly teach and a structural sheet metal configured as the second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry.
Andres teaches a temperature-controlling ring (Fig.1A/B/C) which includes a sleeve-like base body (20), and a structural sheet metal (note 24 extends as a sheet axially along 12 and circumferentially around 12) that serves as a second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry (note 26).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas supply apparatus of Weber by having a structural sheet metal that serves as the second radially outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry based on the teachings of Andres because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (temperature-controlling ring of Weber) for another (temperature-controlling ring of Andres) to obtain predictable results (providing a structure with temperature controlling features that efficiently exchange heat between a heat source and a passing fluid).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber and Andres as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kun (US 3,810,509 A).
Regarding claim 7, Weber and Andres teach a method for manufacturing a temperature-controlling device for a gas supply apparatus according to claim 6 (see above) and raised regions (Andres Fig.1A/B/C, 26) which serve as the second radially-outwardly opening temperature-controlling guide geometry, however do not explicitly teach a sheet metal material is reshaped in order to form the gas-guiding surface with the raised regions.
Kun teaches a thin metal heat exchanger having channels as primary surface and surface-distorted fins attached to the channels as the secondary surfaces (column 1 line 14-17). Kun further teaches a sheet metal material is reshaped in order to form the gas-guiding surface with the raised regions (column 9 line 41-52); this provides a heat exchanger which can be easily manufactured (column 4 line 21-24).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Weber and Andres by having a sheet metal material being reshaped in order to form the gas-guiding surface with the raised regions based on the teachings of Kun because this would provide a heat exchanger which can be easily manufactured.
Regarding claim 8, Weber, Andres and Kun further teach the reshaped sheet metal material is bent (Kun column 9 line 41-52; note bent or dented) and merged at two ends to create a structural sheet metal sleeve that is connected to the sleeve-like base body to realize the gas temperature-controlling ring, which is mounted on the temperature-controlling sleeve (Andres Fig.1A/B/C; note Andres ring extends circumferentially which would require two ends of a sheet metal to be merged to realize the circumferentially extending shape as disclosed).
Regarding claim 9, Weber, Andres and Kun further teach the reshaped sheet metal material is bent (Kun column 9 line 41-52; note bent or dented) around the sleeve-like base body and connected thereto to define the gas temperature-controlling ring (Andres Fig.1A/B/C; note Andres ring extends circumferentially which would require two ends of a sheet metal to be merged to realize the circumferentially extending shape as disclosed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the housing radially outwardly delimits the second-temperature control guide geometry of the gas temperature-controlling ring and at least partially delimits the first temperature-controlling guide geometry of the temperature-controlling sleeve (as in the context of claim 11).
The closest prior art reference (Weber) does not disclose said configuration.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745